Concerned about the heat to light ratio of this thread, Rick writes:
> [Host's Note: Hmm... Let's step back and notice what's happening here.
> Notice some of the feelings and how they are expressed after a long
> exchange which didn't convince either "side" to change their mind. Now,
> from long experience, I am absolutely sure that Rol *is* open to new ideas
> and that Roxanne *is* respectful of others' opinions, and the clash is not
> that anyone is just stubborn. It strikes me that there is something big
> going on here. If we are serious about this, we'll go for it, but what is
> it? What would it take to make a break through?
> Ben has offered a case study as another avenue. That might be productive.
> My insertion here is not a gripe about Gene's msg or any other...
> Could someone please try to summarize, and do so fairly, what are the key
> issues here? What's kept this thread so vigorous without a clean
> resolution? I hope we are serious enough to keep at it; I think there's
> gold in here somewhere. ... Rick]
Well, this isn't much of a summary, but:
Point: Fred Nickols has eloquently argued that rating/ranking systems are
too hard to get right, and extremely damaging when you don't, and besides
there are more cost-effective and safer alternatives (I hope that's not
too much of a distortion or oversimplification, Fred).
Counterpoint: Ben Compton stoutly defends his claim that a good ranking
system is not only OK, but essential for a healthy, competitive company
(ditto, Ben).
Other participants seem to cluster around one or the other, or
occasionally offer something in between.
As Rick says, I'd like to step back a bit, and ask some engineer-style
questions about the context of the argument:
- What goals are companies trying to achieve with ranking systems or
alternatives to them?
- What are the constraints under which these goals must be pursued?
- What are the various tools for achieving these goals?
- What are the desired effects of these tools, and what are the avoidable
and unavoidable side effects?
- In what contexts can a given tool be successfully used?
I use the word "tool" loosely here; read "process", "system", "technique",
or whatever works best for you.
Don't take the questions themselves too literally; I'm just trying to
change the focus of the discussion to a cooperative, investigative one
(and maybe even synthetic, if that's not too much to hope for).
As to "What's kept this thread so vigorous without a clean resolution?": I
think it hits close to home with everyone who's ever worked in a company
and been subject to a process that determines their raises. It might be
useful for people to consider, and even post, the feelings that lead them
to be so energetic in arguing their positions.
--Don Dwiggins "Man can make System great, SEI Information Technology but System cannot make Man great" d.l.dwiggins@computer.org -- Confucius
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>